Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Disclaimor - possibly biased source:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/10/100205rcPoli.htm

Excerpts from the article:

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero who legalized same-sex marriage in their countries, and about a dozen American politicians who support gay marriage - including San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom who issued marriage licenses last year to same-sex couples - could be refused the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church under a proposal being considered by the Vatican.

Paul Martin said:

"Have I discussed (this) with senior churchmen, with bishops? The answer is yes, I have. But as far as any further comment, I'm a legislator and that's public and I will comment on my public position. As a Catholic, that's my faith and I'll keep that to myself.''

But Martin's sentiment isn't good enough for the Church anymore. While some will dismiss this as an internal matter of the church related to disciplining its flock, I see a more sinister purpose - the attempt by the Church to interfere with government & public policy in an effort to extend its reach to control the lives of non-believers.

[Winchester]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
But Martin's sentiment isn't good enough for the Church anymore. While some will dismiss this as an internal matter of the church related to disciplining its flock, I see a more sinister purpose - the attempt by the Church to interfere with government & public policy in an effort to extend its reach to control the lives of non-believers.

That's nothing new. Churches have always done/attempted to do this.

[John Galt]

So what? The Vatican can do whatever it wants.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: So what? The Vatican can do whatever it wants.
Certainly - and we have every right to resist the efforts of a foreign body to interfere in the government of this nation.

When churches become more interested in politics than spirituality, it is good for neither the church nor the government they target.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: So what? The Vatican can do whatever it wants.
Certainly - and we have every right to resist the efforts of a foreign body to interfere in the government of this nation.

When churches become more interested in politics than spirituality, it is good for neither the church nor the government they target.

How are they being more interested in politics? They oppose homosexuals as being immoral sodimites that shall burn in hell for their sins, just as they oppose abortionists as murderers who shall be chewed by Satan for all eternity, just as they oppose executioners as murderers who shall be sent to the depths of hell for all eternity. They are concerned about these people's spirtuality, not politics, IMO. I don't agree with them, but hey, their peroggative.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: So what? The Vatican can do whatever it wants.
Certainly - and we have every right to resist the efforts of a foreign body to interfere in the government of this nation.

When churches become more interested in politics than spirituality, it is good for neither the church nor the government they target.

How are they being more interested in politics? They oppose homosexuals as being immoral sodimites that shall burn in hell for their sins, just as they oppose abortionists as murderers who shall be chewed by Satan for all eternity, just as they oppose executioners as murderers who shall be sent to the depths of hell for all eternity. They are concerned about these people's spirtuality, not politics, IMO. I don't agree with them, but hey, their peroggative.
If they're not interested in politics then why are they publicly targeting politicians? Is it because they're deeply interested in their spiritual life? Perhaps they are, but that's not the reason for this campaign and you know it. They're doing it because they want to control the government's policy on these issues and thereby the lives of non-believers. They'd target non-Catholic politicians as well if they could figure out a way to do it. So don't give me the crap about them being concerned about some senator's soul. They're welcome to oppose those things as a matter of discipline within their own flock, but when they do so as part of a purposely public and orchestrated effort to shame and control politicians charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of non-Catholics as well, it becomes quite obvious what they're really up to. Just because the church may think it has a spiritual interest in extending their power to control my life, that doesn't mean I have to let them or keep quiet about what in my view is an obvious abuse of the power of religion. Those who think they can use political power as a stepping stone to spreading their spirituality cannot avoid being tainted by the evils inherent in such political maneuvering.

As I said - it will come to no good for both religion and the government.

[Dragoon]

Mystic, I have to day that I love your posts and your arguements you are a shining example for those of us fighting the good fight.

[Winchester]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: If they're not interested in politics then why are they publicly targeting politicians?

Because they are easy targets. The politicians are on record supporting a position the church is against. If they out a politician it also makes news and they get the word out that the church is serious.

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Is it because they're deeply interested in their spiritual life? Perhaps they are, but that's not the reason for this campaign and you know it. They're doing it because they want to control the government's policy on these issues and thereby the lives of non-believers.

The church may very well want to control the government's policy on these issues, but I think it more likely they will only suceed in shrinking their ranks as they drive members from the church.

Bottom line they have every right to their beliefs and to espouse them and throw members from their ranks. Doesn't mean we have to like it.

As far as I know separation of church and state doesn't apply to churches trying to influence its members and the policies it supports.

BTW: You think the Catholic Church is bad, take a look at the control over politics the Mormon Church has in Utah. Downright scary.

[Pimpkie_69]

How exactly is supporting gay marriage being legal any worse than supporting divorce or adultery being legal?? All of those things go against the traditional definition of marriage, and are sinful.

Homosexuality is a sin, not a crime. Churches shouldn't PERFORM gay marriage. In fact, I'm very much against churches performing gay marriage. But the government should nonetheless allow it to be legal.

Paul Martin has done nothing wrong by legalizing gay marriage (though he has done wrong on other things for sure).

[F'losrix]

Winchester wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: If they're not interested in politics then why are they publicly targeting politicians?

Because they are easy targets. The politicians are on record supporting a position the church is against. If they out a politician it also makes news and they get the word out that the church is serious.
And why would they want someone who's an easy target? Someone that makes news, etc.? Simple - because their agenda is political, not spiritual. Otherwise, there would be no need for them to put this before non-Catholics by taking the issue to the public media. Church matters should be handled by the church within its own hierarchical structures - not by airing their dirty laundry in the press. If they want to refuse a communicant, that's a matter for the bishop, priests and that person. Is it the church's general practice to make it known also to fellow congregants? Maybe, I don't know - I can see why they might publicize it within the church (not that I'd agree with the practice). But publishing it to the media? Why is this being leaked to the media? They're targeting politicians and going public with it because they have a political agenda and they think they can enlist the press and thereby all congregants of the faith to put pressure on government officials who subscribe to that faith in a blatant effort to influence the U.S. government's public policies - policies that apply to people of many faiths, not just catholicism.

It walks like a politically motivated duck, it quacks like a politically motivated duck and it poops like a politically motivated duck. It is what it is - a political power grab by the church that has nothing to do with spirituality.

Quote: The church may very well want to control the government's policy on these issues, but I think it more likely they will only suceed in shrinking their ranks as they drive members from the church.
If this is the direction the church is headed in, one can only hope you're right.

Quote: Bottom line they have every right to their beliefs and to espouse them and throw members from their ranks. Doesn't mean we have to like it.
Agreed - and I'm free to voice my dislike for what they're doing - loudly.

Quote: As far as I know separation of church and state doesn't apply to churches trying to influence its members and the policies it supports.
I've never claimed otherwise. Doesn't mean I won't criticize it. Just because I respect someone's right to hold a particular belief, that doesn't mean I have to respect the belief itself. Similarly, just because the church is protected from the State's interference on such matters, that doesn't mean those of us who are potentially impacted by their actions are obligated to sit on our hands and keep silent.

Quote: BTW: You think the Catholic Church is bad, take a look at the control over politics the Mormon Church has in Utah. Downright scary.
Sure, but there are far more Catholics than Mormons - so the issue is one of scale. The Vatican has a very wide reach.

[Winchester]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Winchester wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: If they're not interested in politics then why are they publicly targeting politicians?

Because they are easy targets. The politicians are on record supporting a position the church is against. If they out a politician it also makes news and they get the word out that the church is serious.
And why would they want someone who's an easy target? Someone that makes news, etc.? Simple - because their agenda is political, not spiritual. Otherwise, there would be no need for them to put this before non-Catholics by taking the issue to the public media. Church matters should be handled by the church within its own hierarchical structures - not by airing their dirty laundry in the press.

Agree with you, their motivation is political not spiritual.

BTW: I do agree with your overall sentiment, I dislike these kind of church tactics. But I'd be willing to bet the church isn't going to change in our lifetimes.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: So what? The Vatican can do whatever it wants.
Certainly - and we have every right to resist the efforts of a foreign body to interfere in the government of this nation.

When churches become more interested in politics than spirituality, it is good for neither the church nor the government they target.

How are they being more interested in politics? They oppose homosexuals as being immoral sodimites that shall burn in hell for their sins, just as they oppose abortionists as murderers who shall be chewed by Satan for all eternity, just as they oppose executioners as murderers who shall be sent to the depths of hell for all eternity. They are concerned about these people's spirtuality, not politics, IMO. I don't agree with them, but hey, their peroggative.
If they're not interested in politics then why are they publicly targeting politicians? Is it because they're deeply interested in their spiritual life? Perhaps they are, but that's not the reason for this campaign and you know it. They're doing it because they want to control the government's policy on these issues and thereby the lives of non-believers. They'd target non-Catholic politicians as well if they could figure out a way to do it. So don't give me the crap about them being concerned about some senator's soul. They're welcome to oppose those things as a matter of discipline within their own flock, but when they do so as part of a purposely public and orchestrated effort to shame and control politicians charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of non-Catholics as well, it becomes quite obvious what they're really up to. Just because the church may think it has a spiritual interest in extending their power to control my life, that doesn't mean I have to let them or keep quiet about what in my view is an obvious abuse of the power of religion. Those who think they can use political power as a stepping stone to spreading their spirituality cannot avoid being tainted by the evils inherent in such political maneuvering.

As I said - it will come to no good for both religion and the government.

No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.
And if those people don't want to be 'saved' by the Catholic church? Keep spinning, John. I hear that if you go fast enough, you can dig your own grave.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.
And if those people don't want to be 'saved' by the Catholic church? Keep spinning, John. I hear that if you go fast enough, you can dig your own grave.

So what if they don't want to be? I don't want to be. But the Catholic Church is not being political here. I am explaining why they are trying to save people's souls, not rule the world. They are well within their rights to do this and frankly I don't know why you care.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.
And if those people don't want to be 'saved' by the Catholic church? Keep spinning, John. I hear that if you go fast enough, you can dig your own grave.

So what if they don't want to be? I don't want to be. But the Catholic Church is not being political here. I am explaining why they are trying to save people's souls, not rule the world. They are well within their rights to do this and frankly I don't know why you care.

It's indeed a political move John. Otherwise, the Catholic Church wouldn't have come out officially to prevent the Spanish and the Canadian gay marriage laws from changing. Or they wouldn't have come out officially to prevent the Italian fertility laws from changing.

But I will stop there as you seem intent on vindicating the attempts by a group of intolerant people who have no regard for the rights of others to dictate how minorities should live their lives around the globe.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.
And if those people don't want to be 'saved' by the Catholic church? Keep spinning, John. I hear that if you go fast enough, you can dig your own grave.

So what if they don't want to be? I don't want to be. But the Catholic Church is not being political here. I am explaining why they are trying to save people's souls, not rule the world.
Sorry, but you've got it backwards. Quite clearly they do think they need to have some control over politics & governments to further their quest of soul saving. Maybe you don't have a problem with a foreign entity trying to effect a change in U.S. government policy by using religious blackmail against our politicians, but I do.

Quote: They are well within their rights to do this and frankly I don't know why you care.
Then you haven't been paying attention and I'm not going to spell it out for you again.

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.
And if those people don't want to be 'saved' by the Catholic church? Keep spinning, John. I hear that if you go fast enough, you can dig your own grave.

So what if they don't want to be? I don't want to be. But the Catholic Church is not being political here. I am explaining why they are trying to save people's souls, not rule the world. They are well within their rights to do this and frankly I don't know why you care.

It's indeed a political move John. Otherwise, the Catholic Church wouldn't have come out officially to prevent the Spanish and the Canadian gay marriage laws from changing. Or they wouldn't have come out officially to prevent the Italian fertility laws from changing.

But I will stop there as you seem intent on vindicating the attempts by a group of intolerant people who have no regard for the rights of others to dictate how minorities should live their lives around the globe.

Again, WHY CAN'T THEY? No one is forced to join the Catholic Church. They can do what ever the hell they want. Including trying to save the souls of others, even if they don't want saving.

I asked Skeptic why the hell he cares and he gives some "I've already explained" a-typical response but the fact of the matter is no one has explained why anyone should care. Why hasn't anyone explained? Because the only concievable reason why we should care would revolve around the idea that we could possibly stop it, or that we should be able to stop it, or that the Catholic Church doesn't have the right to do this. But the fact of the matter is only a perverse country would allow this to be stopped or would say that it should be stopped.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: No, I think they believe thosepoliticans are damned to hell. But the people that are affected by thepolicies they approve of -- those are the people the Church is trying to save. I see nothing wrong with them doing what they are doing.
And if those people don't want to be 'saved' by the Catholic church? Keep spinning, John. I hear that if you go fast enough, you can dig your own grave.

So what if they don't want to be? I don't want to be. But the Catholic Church is not being political here. I am explaining why they are trying to save people's souls, not rule the world. They are well within their rights to do this and frankly I don't know why you care.

It's indeed a political move John. Otherwise, the Catholic Church wouldn't have come out officially to prevent the Spanish and the Canadian gay marriage laws from changing. Or they wouldn't have come out officially to prevent the Italian fertility laws from changing.

But I will stop there as you seem intent on vindicating the attempts by a group of intolerant people who have no regard for the rights of others to dictate how minorities should live their lives around the globe.

Again, WHY CAN'T THEY? No one is forced to join the Catholic Church. They can do what ever the hell they want. Including trying to save the souls of others, even if they don't want saving.

I asked Skeptic why the hell he cares and he gives some "I've already explained" a-typical response
Because I have already explained, but since you insist on playing this game I'll do so again below.

Quote: but the fact of the matter is no one has explained why anyone should care. Why hasn't anyone explained?
Probably because we think it's so obvious it shouldn't need to be spelled out in simplistic terms.

Quote: Because the only concievable reason why we should care would revolve around the idea that we could possibly stop it
No - I've already stipulated to the fact that we can't ever completely stop it. More below.

Quote: or that we should be able to stop it
I have to assume you intend us to interpret that as meaning by some legal restriction that prohibits what the church is attempting to do. I can conceive of none that would not have more serious and undesirable effects in the long term.


Quote: or that the Catholic Church doesn't have the right to do this.
People have rights, not corporate or religious entities, despite anything misguided the court may have to say on the issue. Any 'rights' these entities might have stem from them acting as agents of the people. The freedom of religious expression is a right of the people, not the church. Do the people have the right to speak through the church on this matter? I think the point is moot. But as I noted above, any action by the government to prevent it could potentially have undesirable outcomes.

Quote: But the fact of the matter is only a perverse country would allow this to be stopped or would say that it should be stopped.
I didn't say there should be government action. What I believe is that the people should be made aware of what the church is up to and find legitimate ways to oppose it - such as I am doing by speaking out in this forum. Hopefully some of them will get smart and decide that Catholic candidates aren't worth electing if there's a danger of them putting the interests of the church before those of the people. Just because the Constitution says the government shall have no religious test barring someone from serving, that doesn't mean the people can't employ a de facto bar via the voting booth.

Let me be clear here before you decide to start ranting that I'm anti-Catholic. I don't have a problem with people who choose to follow that faith for themselves - so long as their practice of it doesn't mean interfering with my personal choice on issues of faith and morality. My beef is with the church and its desire to try to run my life against my will. If it has a right to manipulate it's flock and coerce them to vote a certain way, then those of us who view the church as an enemy of liberty have just as much right to try to persuade the remainder of the public - and yes, even progressive Catholics - to take off the blinders, realize the church is after political power as a stepping stone to interfering in the lives of non-believers, and to try to get them to defy the church when the chance to vote its minions out of office arrives.

Since you can't see a reason why anyone should be concerned about this issue, I have to conclude that you're fully in favor of political officials being coerced by their religious leaders. That you don't have a problem with elected representatives voting as dictated to by the church, rather than doing so in a way that represents the best interests of all their constituents, no just the Catholics in their district. That you look forward to the day when the majority decide to completely toss the Republic and institute theocracy.

Well, I'm not looking forward to that day and I feel I have a duty to do what I can to prevent it. That is why I'm concerned with the church's actions.

And if you still don't get it, it's because you just don't want to.